New issue
Advanced search Search tips
Note: Color blocks (like █ or █) mean that a user may not be available. Tooltip shows the reason.

Issue 627781 link

Starred by 4 users
Status: Untriaged
Owner: ----
Cc:
█ ahbeng@chromium.org
creis@chromium.org
alex...@chromium.org
█ nasko@chromium.org
wfh@chromium.org
Components:
EstimatedDays: ----
NextAction: ----
OS: All
Pri: 3
Type: Feature



Sign in to add a comment

OOPIF sandboxed iframes seem to be same-process

Project Member Reported by jakearchibald@chromium.org, Jul 13 2016 
Apologies if this simply hasn't been done yet.

http://output.jsbin.com/xutaciv/quiet

The top random number is generated every frame.

The bottom random number is generated every time the iframe postMessages to the parent window. The iframe tries to do this every frame, but it's also running a function which blocks for a second every frame.

In an environment where the iframe is running in a different process, I'd expect the top random number to change at a much higher frequency than the bottom, but they appear to be changing in unison, suggesting they're sharing an event loop.

Comment 1 by nasko@chromium.org, Jul 13 2016 

I can't see in your code how the two frames will be in separate sites, as you load the contents though a data: URL. Data URLs are always same site, even though they are different origin. If you include the same example from a different eTLD+1 and have --site-per-process flag enabled, you should see them in separate processes. You can use the Chrome Task Manager to verify that you are getting a different process with a "Subframe" prefix.

If you are still having problems, feel free to ping me.

Comment 2 by jakearchibald@chromium.org, Aug 12 2016 

I agree that data urls are same site, but I thought the sandbox attribute would change this.

Comment 3 by creis@chromium.org, Aug 12 2016

Cc: creis@chromium.org alex...@chromium.org nasko@chromium.org
Labels: -Type-Bug Type-Feature
We haven't implemented any support for using OOPIFs on the sandbox iframe attribute yet.  That may come after we've launched the first uses with --isolate-extensions, though!  Thanks for checking in about it.

Comment 4 by ahbeng@google.com, May 31 2018

Cc: ahbeng@chromium.org

Comment 5 by lukasza@chromium.org, Jan 14 

This seems to be a duplicate of issue 510122, right?  (at least I don't see any substantial differences... :-/).
►

Sign in to add a comment